RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

["LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE@advancenet.net>]

I think the likelihood of someone wanting to buy a web resolution image is
probably very low; but the likelihood of someone wanting to steal it (i.e.
use it for free) is probably much higher.  Typically, those that do steal
web resolution images are those who either do not use images for their
livelihood and do don't understand anything about copyrights and licensing
or those who are aware of such things but will steal what they can and do
not really concern themselves with the quality or resolution of the image
that they steal and use.  While it can be argued that making low resolution
images available on the web and easy to find entices people to download and
use the low resolution images rather than  view them as previews upon which
to base decisions as to what Images they would want to license high
resolution versions of which in turn may narrow the market for higher
resolution images, I do not think this really is as big a problem as one
might think; and the existence of engines like Google probably do not have
any major impact on the rates of image theft.  Thus, I concur with your
first paragraph in both its literal articulation as well as in some of the
associated implicit issues it suggests.

As for the second paragraph, I do not think that the question being raised
is so much people buying low resolution web images per se; but the issue is
more the effectiveness of selling or licensing high resolution versions of
the images being cataloged and displayed on web sites based on those low
resolution web displays.  I know some stock photographers who do find this
as an effective way of marketing their images; however, I, like you, have
not found the web to be an effective way to market high quality and
resolution versions of images or commercial photographic services.  My
experience like yours has been that the costs outweigh what those who use
the web are willing to pay for services and use of images.  It tends to
cater to the mass market mentality where those shopping tend to want high
quality images ( if they are even concerned with or know quality) at poster
prices - if not for free - and cheap photographic services where quality is
not the concern but bottom line pricing is. In short the web market, in my
experience, is the sort of market where the buyer regards all photographers
indiscriminately as if they were copy machines (with no differences in style
or skills being recognized) and all images as if they were off the shelf
manufactured retail products like you find in a retail outlet.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 4:56 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images


Harvey writes:

> In a word, yes.....to both questions.

Interesting.  I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a
thumbnail
image.  Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is
a
source of revenue, why would putting them in a search engine make them any
more
likely to be stolen than leaving them on your site?

Personally, I have a very hard time finding buyers for Web images; most
people
want them for free, and even if they are willing to pay, they don't want to
pay
much.  I cannot cover my costs with what people are willing to pay for a Web
image, which is one reason why I still shoot film (high-resolution images,
such
as those obtainable from film, are worth much more than Web-resolution
images,
and since they are not themselves on my site, they cannot be stolen).